以下內容乃K.W.Ho之補習教材，於課堂教授，內容乃配合K.W.Ho之答題方法及風格所製作，同時內容可能有錯誤之處以供在課堂上糾正。非補習學生在未有得到課堂教學的情況下錯誤使用，恕不負責，同學請敬請留意。
【Free】6000頁筆記及60份5**考卷免費使用：按此
Youtube教學：按此
_________________________________________________________________________
「就實現現代化而言，革命比改革更為有效。」你是否同意？參考1900-49年間的中國歷史，解釋你的答案。
定義 「革命」與「改革」同樣希望達致破舊立新的作用，革新狀況，但兩者不同之處在於革命由下而上帶來轉變，但改革則由在位者推行，從上而下實施。20世紀上半葉，革命主要包括辛亥革命、五四運動及共產主義革命，而改革則主要是晚清政府及南京政府的改革。 // 架構就實現中國現代化而言，革命於社會方面較改革有效，但在政治方面則與改革的成效參半，於經濟及外交方面更較改革遜色。// 立場因此，題目所言在小程度上成立。
主旨句 社會方面，革命較能喚起國民的公民意識，對實現中國現代化的成效大於改革。 // 項目A 雖然改革也能摒棄部分的社會陋習，例如晚清期間廢除禁止滿漢通婚的不平等規定，南京政府又成功廢止了纏足及吸食鴉片等社會陋習，同時，又於1934年開展的「新生活運動」提倡「禮﹑義﹑廉﹑恥」等傳統美德，有助喚醒民族醒覺和共融合作的精神。 // 項目B 然而，革命對於實踐社會現代化的成效大。辛亥革命後，孫中山提出了「五族共和」的思想，成為了中國種族平等及共融相處，尊重民族多元化的重要一步。及後，五四運動期間的大規模式遊行示威成為公民運動的榜樣，使日後人民更積極參與自發性運動，如要求廢除娼妓﹑反對外國工廠剝削等，有助提高中國國民的公民意識。 // 對比(~20%) 相比之下，由於革命是由下而上進行，人民自願性參與以作出改變，大大喚起了中國國民的公民意識，其中五四運動的精神更一直傳承至今，相反，改革是由上而下推行，因此國民參與的積極性較低，成效亦較革命遜色。
從上可見，革命對於實現中國社會現代化的成效大於改革。然而，於政治、經濟及外交方面，革命並非較改革有效。
政治方面，改革與革命對於實現中國政治現代化的成效均甚微。改革方面，晚清政府及南京政府亦為中國政治現代化作出了努力，例如晚清政府嘗試進行憲制改革，成立諮議局、資政院及內閣，嘗試將中國打造成君主立憲國家；南京政府實行五權分立，並且按照孫中山的《建國大綱》，逐步將中國打造成共和立憲國家。至於革命方面，辛亥革命推翻實行了二千多年的帝制，建立了中華民國，打破了中國的舊政治；毛澤東領導的共產主義革命也終結了南京政府的統治，於1949年建立了中華人民共和國，開創了中國的新政治。然而，改革和革命於實現中國政治現代化一事上同樣欠缺成效，因晚清的憲制改革是試圖中央集權，鞏固皇帝權力；而南京政府亦是一黨治國，不斷剿共。在另一邊廂，辛亥革命雖然結束了帝制，但卻未能奠定民主體制，更陷入袁世凱的專政時期，革命尚未成功；而共產主義革命雖然獲得成功，但卻是專制政制，有違現代化的民主政治。因此，綜觀20世紀上半葉的中國政治發展，中國仍然處於專制的狀況，故改革與改革的成效甚微。
經濟方面，革命對於實現中國現代化的成效不及改革。雖然革命對於推動中國經濟現代化不無成效，例如辛亥革命後，國內企業紛紛成立，加上海外華僑對新中國寄予希望而回流發展，令民族企業迅速發展；五四運動時期，國民主張支持國貨，抵制外貨，如1915年上海成立「勸用國貨會」，有助民族企業的發展。然而，改革的成效更大，例如於晚清時期草擬了新的商法，例如《公司律》、《公司章程》等，革新了中國的商業法則。及後，南京政府積極推動商業改革，改革金融幣制，於1935年以紙幣取代銀元，同時，於工業方面也積極扶助本地工業，又擴建鐵路，如1936年通車的粵漢鐵路，使工業也得以發展，被稱為是中國經濟的「黃金十年」，成效甚大。相較之下，由於經濟的現代化較依賴具規模的中央指導，制定措施以營造有利的商業環境，所以革命的成效較小，因革命後的政局混亂，不利於經濟發展，相反，改革較符合上述的條件，而晚清政府及南京政府更於商業法則及貨幣等體制上達致了破舊立新的作用，對實現中國經濟現代化的成效較大。
外交方面，革命對於實現中國現代化的成效不及改革。雖然革命也有助提高中國的外交地位，例如五四運動反對列強於巴黎和會中將德國在中國山東的利益轉交予日本，最終有助使列強於華盛頓會議(1921-22)中重新制定對中國山東的處理，廢除了日本的特權，有助中國主權的恢復。然而，改革對於實現中國外交現代化的成效更大。儘管晚清改革中所成立的外交部對於促進中國外交現代化的成效不大，然而，至南京政府時期，南京政府致力提高中國的國際地位，及廢除外國在華的不平等待遇，如於1926-30年間收復漢口﹑廈門等的英國租界及於1930年收回關稅自主權，最終使中國於1943年成功收復所有主權，恢復主權獨立，有助使中國實現外交平等，達致現代化。相比之下，革命對於實現中國外交現代化的成效甚微，因辛亥革命後革命黨及袁世凱為爭取列強承認中華民國的建立，故不敢向列強強硬要求廢止不平等條約，而五四運動後也僅取回了中國山東的權益，相反，南京政府的改革則成功收復所有主權，最終解除了不平等條約對中國的束縛，有助實現外交現代化，成效大於革命。
總括而言，雖然革命與改革對於促進20世紀上半葉中國現代化的發展均極為有限，但仔細對比下，革命的成效小於改革。因此，題目所言在小程度上成立。
‘Revolution was more effective than reform in achieving modernization.’ Do you agree? Explain your answer with reference to the history of China in the period 1900-49.
Both “revolution” and “reform” have the same target. They hope to destroy the old and establish the new, bringing innovation to the situation. Yet the difference between them is that “revolution” brings changes from bottom to top, whilst “reform” is carried out by the incumbent from top to bottom. In the first half of the 20th century, revolution mainly included the 1911 Revolution, the May Fourth Movement and the Communist Revolution, whereas reform primarily included the Late Qing Reform and the reforms of the Nanjing government. In terms of achieving modernization in China, revolution was more effective than reform in social aspect. However, in political aspect, revolution had similar effectiveness with reform. In economic and diplomatic aspects, revolution was even less effective to reform. Therefore, to a small extent, I agree with the statement.
In social aspect, revolution had greater effectiveness than that of reform in achieving modernization in China as it could awaken people’s civic awareness more. Undoubtedly, reform could get rid of some undesirable social customs. For example, the ban of Manzu-Han intermarriage禁止滿漢通婚 was lifted in the Late Qing Reform and foot-binding纏足 and opium-smoking鴉片 were prohibited in the reform of Nanjing government. The New Life Movement新生活運動 was launched in 1934, which promoted the Confucian virtues of “propriety, righteousness, honesty and the sense of shame” (li, yi, lian, chi), arousing mass consciousness, the spirit of cooperation and civil awareness. However, revolution was more significant than reform in achieving social modernization. After the 1911 Revolution, Sun Yat-sen proposed the “five-group harmony五族共和”, which was an important step to equal and harmonious coexistence of different races in China, and respect ethnic diversity. Later, the large scale protest during the May Fourth Movement became the model of citizens’ movement. People joining citizens’ movements more voluntarily later, such as movements against prostitution娼妓 and exploitation of foreign industries外國工廠剝削. Civic awareness of the Chinese was raised. By comparison, as revolution was carried out from bottom to top which people join it voluntarily to make changes, people’s civic awareness was raised greatly. The spirit of the May Fourth Movement still passed down to us now. On the contrary, reform was carried out from top to bottom, therefore people’s incentives to join was lower. The effectiveness of reform was not as good as that of revolution.
As shown above, revolution was more effective than reform in achieving social modernization in China. Yet, in political, economic and diplomatic aspect, revolution was not more effective than reform.
In political aspect, both reform and revolution had low effectiveness in achieving political modernization in China. For reform, the late Qing government and the Nanjing government made efforts to attain political modernization. For example, the late Qing government attempted to carry out constitutional reform. Provincial assemblies諮議局, the National Assembly資政院and the cabinet內閣 were established, trying to turn China into a country with constitutional monarchy. The Nanjing government adopted the five-power system五權分立, and try to turn China into a republican country gradually according to Sun Yat-sen’s ‘Fundamentals of National Reconstruction五權分立’. For revolution, the 1911 Revolution successfully ended the 2000-year monarchy and established the first republic, breaking the old politics of China. The Communist Revolution led by Mao Zedong also ended the rule of the Nanjing government. In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) set up the People’s Republic of China, starting new politic rule in China. Yet, both reform and revolution lacked effectiveness in achieving political modernization in China. This was because, first, the constitutional reform in late Qing was just trying to carry out centralization中央集權 and consolidate the power of the emperor. Second, the Nanjing government also ruled China by one party一黨治國 and it tried to exterminate the CCP continuously. On the other hand, although the 1911 Revolution ended the monarchy, democratic system was not established. Even worse, China fell into the dictatorship of Yuan Shikai袁世凱. Revolution was not successful. As for the Communist Revolution, although it was successful, it was an autocratic political system, which violated democratic politics which were considered as modernized. Therefore, by looking at the overview of the political development in China in the first half of the 20th century, China was still in autocratic rule, so both reform and revolution had low effectiveness.
In economic aspect, revolution was not more effective than reform in attaining modernization. Undoubtedly, revolution had certain effectiveness in promoting economic modernization in China. For instance, after the 1911 Revolution, national enterprises sprouted up. Also, overseas Chinese had high hopes for the new China and returned, helping national enterprises民族企業 to develop rapidly. During the May Fourth Movement, people supported local goods and boycotted the foreign ones. For example, the Society for the Use of National Goods勸用國貨會 was set up in Shanghai in 1915, which helped the development of national enterprises. Yet, the effectiveness of reform was even greater. For example, in Late Qing period, commercial laws such as the Company Act公司律 and the Articles of Association公司章程 were drafted, reforming commercial laws in China. Later, the Nanjing government pushed forward economic reforms. It reformed the monetary system by replacing silver dollars with banknotes紙幣 in 1935. At the same time, it assisted local industries and extended railways like the Guangdong-Hankou Railway粵漢鐵路 opened in 1936, which helped develop the industry. It was called the “Golden Ten Years黃金十年” of the economy in China. The effectiveness was quite great. By comparison, the effectiveness of revolution was lower because economic modernization relied more on central planning by the government. Measures could be carried out by the government to create beneficial business environment. Revolution itself would cause political chaos, which was not beneficial to economic development so it was less effective. On the contrary, reform could meet the criteria mentioned above more than revolution did. The reforms on commercial laws商業法則 and monetary system貨幣制度 by the Late Qing government and the Nanjing government reached brilliant effectiveness as they could destroy the old and establish the new, which were more effective in attaining economic modernization in China.
In diplomatic aspect, revolution was not more effective than reform in achieving modernization. Admitted, revolution could raise the diplomatic status of China. For instance, in the May Fourth Movement五四運動, due to the strong protest, the Western powers revised the decision about Shandong problem in the Washington Conference華盛頓會議(1921-22). Japan’s rights were abolished, which restored the sovereignty of China. Yet, reform was more effective in attaining diplomatic modernization in China. Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which was set up in the Late Qing reform was not significant to diplomatic modernization in China, the reform by the Nanjing government did. In the period of Nanjing government, it endeavored to raise the international status of China and abolish the unequal treaties of the foreign countries in China. For example, it recovered British concessions at Hankou漢口 and Xiamen廈門 during 1926-30. Tariff autonomy關稅自主權 was recognised in 1930. China successfully recover all sovereign rights in 1943 and regain its independence in sovereignty, realizing equal diplomacy in China and reaching modernization. By comparison, revolution had limited effectiveness in achieving diplomatic modernization in China. This was because, in the 1911 Revolution, Yuan Shikai袁世凱 and the revolutionaries dared not to demand foreign powers to abolish the unequal treaties in an attempt to fight for the recognition of the Republic of China from the foreign powers. As for the May Fourth Movement, only the right of Shandong was regained. On the contrary, the reform by the Nanjing government could successfully resume all the sovereignty. Constraints which were set by the unequal treaties to China were abolished, helping China realize diplomatic modernization. Therefore, reform had greater effectiveness than revolution.
All in all, although both revolution and reform had limited effectiveness in facilitating modernization in China in the first half of the 20th century, the effectiveness of revolution was lower than that of reform by careful comparison. Therefore, to a small extent, the statement is valid.
Comments